Video: Your civics lesson from Chuck Schumer

posted at 12:15 pm on January 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

A couple of weeks ago, we noted that public officials did more poorly on a civics survey than the general population, with only 49% of elected officials surveyed able to correctly identify the three branches of government — from a multiple-choice list. Add Chuck Schumer to that list. Not only does he incorrectly declare that the three branches of government include the two chambers of Congress and the President, he also completely mischaracterizes the debate on which he blows his civics lesson (via Greg Hengler):

So I would urge my Republican colleagues, no matter how strong they feel — you know, we have three branches of government: we have a House, the Senate, we have a President, and all three of us are going to have to come together and give some. But it is playing with fire to risk the shutting down of the government, just as it is playing with fire to risk not paying the debt ceiling.

For those who went to the same schools as Schumer, the three branches of government are the executive (run by the President), the legislature (which includes both the House and the Senate), and the judiciary. One might have assumed that an attorney like Schumer would know that the judiciary is the third branch of government. Imagine if Sarah Palin had said this; it would be on continuous rotation at MSNBC.

But even apart from that, Schumer still doesn’t have a point. No one is saying that we shouldn’t pay the debt ceiling. There isn’t anyone rooting for default in either party. The question before Congress is whether we will raise the debt ceiling in order to allow the government to borrow even more money. If Congress doesn’t raise it, the US won’t be able to sell more debt, which means that it will have to stop paying on its obligations, although those decisions can be prioritized to put off defaulting on existing bonds, at least for a short period of time.

Perhaps Schumer should familiarize himself with the actual issue at hand, but first, can we get a remedial Civics 101 course for members of Congress?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

But, Chuckie’s not only a liberal. He’s a liberal who got 1600 on his SATs (as Schumer himself will tell you if you have any professional-looking video camera on your presence). That entitles him to a lifetime of get-out-of-moronic-statement cards in the eyes of the big media.

i don’t see what the problem is the FEd can just print more money regardless of what congress does or doesn’t do. the days of the government controlling the money supply and the debt are long gone. The FED controls it all now.

Imagine the stunned “deer in the headlights” moment when just after Shumer uttered his ignorant statement, if he was immediately corrected with the Executive, Legislative (meaning both House and Senate) and the Judiciary and wait for the sound of his jaw hitting the countertop. SPutter sputter sputter “well, maybe in the school system YOU attended” as he attempts to paint you as the imbecile instead of who it really is.

Yes, we’re “playing with fire”. Our fiscal house is burning down. We don’t have a pot to piss in.

Paul-Cincy on January 31, 2011 at 12:31 PM

always loved that saying and when i found out it was in releation to being so poor that one had to go to the Tanners to piss in the vats instead of pissing in a pot in privacy and then dumping the pot into the vat made me like the saying even more….

But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department?

Wrap your 1600 SAT score around that one right there Chuckie. It was right, necessary and proper to divide (there’s that math thing again, boy) the branches of government, and their requisite powers. Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison did the hard math of “dividing” the powers so that slugs like you could add to 3 today. Well, you got to 3, you just added the wrong items. Strong work fella.

Schumer is another example of the mediocrity of the great majority of Congress persons. Think Ted Kennedy in this case for comparison. He was a Harvard grad and UVA Law School alum, yet widely known for being a dunce. One theory about how people who get high SAT scores and grades, yet are demonstrably stupid, is that they are good at memorizing/parroting but aren’t knowledgeable or widely read, nor do they know how to think critically because they only know how to regurgitate.

Schumer is another example of the mediocrity of the great majority of Congress persons. Think Ted Kennedy in this case for comparison. He was a Harvard grad and UVA Law School alum, yet widely known for being a dunce. One theory about how people who get high SAT scores and grades, yet are demonstrably stupid, is that they are good at memorizing/parroting but aren’t knowledgeable or widely read, nor do they know how to think critically because they only know how to regurgitate.

JimP on January 31, 2011 at 12:53 PM

The problem with your theory is that the SAT, LSAT and law school exams don’t test memorization, they test reasoning skills.

I’d agree that one could do very well in high school and undergrad by simply memorizing and regurgitating material, but you can’t ace the SAT, LSAT or law school by doing so.

If George W Bush or Sarah Palin had said this, the liberal media would be up and down screaming that they’re ruining the children of America by misstating a fundamental fact.

But when Schumer says it, he means it from the political perspective.

The LSAT is only a certain kind of reasoning skills, but studying for it, can break it down to certain simple levels. The problem with reasoning tests is that they’re so well-documented you can learn the way to approach that particular test. A good reasoning test would have a dynamic structure, containing questions of multiple kinds with no guarantees as to what will be asked. You wouldn’t be able to prep for a test that never has it’s structure revealed and doesn’t repeat the structure.

From the moment these scum are elected, we are expected to treat them as absolute authority on all matters on which they pontificate, not just politics. We have transferred the faith we used to have in God over to elected tin-gods. We were stupid to have done so and we are paying for it.

I love how the Democrats are lecturing the Republicans on their civic duty, given that the Pelosi and the Democrats never even passed a budget resolution as required by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

1) It’s not my theory; and
2) I presented it as one possible explanation for how allegedly intelligent, educated people are in reality ignorant fools. Did I present it in an over simplified paraphrasing? Perhaps.

ITF, please read comments carefully and argue with our opponents and not quible with allies.

Looks like we’ve found our newest contestant for that ever popular TV game show “Who’s smarter than a 5th grader?” My kids learned this in the 5th grade – incidentally they attended a parochial School…..
THere’s a reason he’s referred to as “Chucky Schmucky” – still trying to find someone who actually admits to voting for this arrogant jerk!

One might have assumed that an attorney like Schumer would know that the judiciary is the third branch of government.

These stupid statements are stacking up… who is keeping them for a hilarious video?

Make sure and include the sign outrage at Jon Stewart silly rally. Obama is a Keynesian… and the Constitution is a hundred years old… Republicans health care plan is they want people to die… 57 states… others?

He probably told Chris Matthew’s that the Suez Cannel was the Panama Cannel and that island in the Pacific would definitely turn over if we landed 5000 military on it that the Congressman reported saying on U-Tube.

I suspect that before the last election Schumer would have informed us that the three branches of government are the president, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and don’t we forget it! That was almost the impression I had. Thank goodness the voters didn’t know Schumer civics.